FZ50 vs DSLR

Gary R. · Sep 17, 2006

DStan said:
As I always say, I have an FZ30 and like it for what it is. I'm
just tired of the whiners that don't know what they're talking
about and make it or the FZ50 out to be an incredible camera. It's
a good camera and in it's league a top dog. To those silly people,
stop making believe and spend more time learning about photography
as that'll do you more good. Go take some pictures and enjoy the
process

In my SLR days, if you had told me that I'd be able to get a camera with a 420mm f/3.7 lens that's stabilized (what's that?) and actually a zoom to boot, with 35mm f/2.8, fully automatic or manual, with ISO's up to 1600, I'd have said "that's incredible".

Why would it bother you if someone thinks it is? Because you have something that you think is better? Better for what? Everybody? Everything?

Seems odd that you're telling US to go take photos and enjoy ourselves?!?! And learn about photography how, by standing around in groups talking about the new L glass lenses that we lust for instead of being out looking for some creative photos? Once we "learn" we can hook up all those fancy flash arrangements you cited in the parts I snipped, boy will that be fun. Maybe we can even shoot weddings on weekends while our poor FZ owner counterparts are in Yosemite or at a balloon festival or shooting birds in the salt marsh. And set up a portrait studio, and take appointments, or get in as school photog. Won't that be nice.

Being around Yosemite quite often, I've noticed something that I don't care for. You go there in off-season, and everybody is friendly, says 'hi' and smiles, chats, relaxes. Everybody, that is, except photographers. They walk right by, lost in their own thoughts, whatever they may be, serious, frowning, muttering. Usually carrying a tripod and big camera. Then they get together with others of like mind, in some spot to take...get this...a photo that's already been taken. Stand around in groups waiting for the late February sunset to try to get a pic like Galen Rowell's of horsetail falls, or on Stoneman bridge, waiting for the golden glow to hit Half Dome. They don't go there and wander around looking for original photos while they're waiting, they stand in bunches and talk about Canon's new L glass lens and the new body, and the new $400 polarizer they got, and tell each other how to use their equipment properly, and practice drooling over image quality.

Now not every photographer in Yosemite is like the above, but a disturbing number are.

These are in general the same folks who are in here insisting that DSLR's are what everyone should be heading to, the only way you can be a real photographer, but so many of them are barely photographers themselves, they have no imagination, they're too busy worrying about their gear to develop imagination. They copy the past great photos, or try to, they go to auto races and stand on a corner and snap the same angle of every car, they go to sports events and snap multi-cards full to submit to an editing crew with a production line.

But they have great equipment. And they want you to know it. And someday, if you listen, you can have stuff like they do, and then you'll be able to take good pictures.

--
Gary
Photo albums: http://www.pbase.com/roberthouse

Gary R. · Sep 17, 2006

tonymp said:
I think at times both sides need to take a reality check! Those who
are prosumer followers must realise that their cams are simply not
as good as DSLR's but by the same token, those who own or wish to
own a DSLR must equally realise that for many, a prosumer offers a
greater choice of features than a DSLR.

Well, in my mind what you're saying is like saying a Honda Civic is simply not as good as a Chevy Tahoe. Whether it's good or not depends on what the user needs from it.

I don't think anyone here is claiming the overall image quality of the FZ50 is as good as the DSLR's overall, that's ridiculous. But image quality is not everything, like it or not, to everyone. I'll take the Honda, BTW...8^).

tonymp said:
can compare them side by side! I have also used the D7i for over 3
years as a polaroid substitute in my studio and the 7i was far more
suitable than the Fz30 that replaced it!

The Minolta D7 series was never a candidate for the ultrazooms, due to the 200mm maximum zoom. I always liked the camera, but it did have many problems (need a handwarmer, buy a D7 and lots of batteries 8^), and since it didn't have enough zoom it never made it to my camera bag.

tonymp said:
Contrary to what you've said in your post about insecurity by DSLR
owners, I think it's fair to say that the insecurity from my
perspective is on the FZ owners side! Just look at the recent posts
where purchasers were desperately trying to justify their upgrade
to the FZ50 - it was clear from images posted on the forum that the
FZ50 fell short of expectations

Do previous (camera) photos from these same people show significantly better photos? If you're going to judge the camera by the posted photos, you need to establish that they knew how to take good photos. A lot posted just samples. This is supposed to be their forum, shouldn't they be able to be excited about the camera here?

I dispute the idea they were trying to justify their upgrade...to whom? Why on earth would they have to do that? Because the usual group came in here and started whining about how the camera was junk even before they saw the first photo?

tonymp said:
very good images but the short fall was particularly evident in the
supposed increased ISO levels and subsequent noise reduction! I
hardly saw any shots posted above 100 ISO and if someone had tried
posting a higher ISO image ( say 800 ISO) taken in low light, then
the images would have been torn to shreds! There were a few but
they weren't good! I believe the FZ50 goes up to 1600 ISO???
Correct me if I'm wrong, but can you honestly say that it's
usable???

Looks to me like it will at least produce a decent quality 5x7 print at 1600, possibly larger. That's not bad for a smal-sensor camera, better than not having 1600 at all.

tonymp said:
The FZ's offer great value for money given their specification and
for many, will be the only camera they'll ever need! However, for
many others, the prosumer with all it's limitations will not offer
what they require and their choice will be a DSLR!

I can't argue with that, it's what I and many others have been saying all along...whatever floats your boat, in essence.

However, as far as limitations, yes there are limitations. But there are limitations with every choice, they're just different. You make your decisions based on what you want, others can do the same with what they want.

I don't like the limitations of the FZ30. But I don't like the limitations that a DSLR would impose on me if it were in the '30's place. Being an SLR user from long ago, I know the limitations of the SLR, and would rather deal with the limitations of the FZ. Does this relegate me to being a 'snapshooter' forever?

I posted a question in an online Yosemite (not photography) group, and had posted a link to my Yosemite galleries for anyone interested. I later got a message from a Yosemite old timer, paraphrased:
----------------

Gary,These photos of yours are fantastic. I was totally getting lost in them. Unlike just looking at a picture, some of them made me feel I was right there with you. Now I really want to leave the office and go up there...
--------------

Nothing about noise, nothing about dynamic range, nothing about if it had been with a DSLR. Since that's what I was trying to do when I took the photos, apparently the camera works OK for me. So do I need to "move up" to a DSLR?

I also do a music festival every year, as the 'official' photographer despite using an ultrazoom, and get a lot of nice feedback about the photos 'bringing back the festival, like being there', which, again, is what I'm trying to do. The FZ30 and its predecessors did great there, should I have gone for a DSLR anyway?
http://www.pbase.com/roberthouse/image/36484113 (2100 photo, available light)

I have more examples, but will quit there. My point is that it's OK to choose a camera that you like because YOU like it; nobody else matters; there's no need to listen to camera snobs who probably don't shoot much of anything but lens charts anyway, nor should you listen to well-meaning but inexperienced people who tell you that you "need" this to do that. They're probably wrong. It's a personal decision, and if you want to haul around a DSLR, more power to you, but kindly realize that those who make other choices are not somehow 'foolish' or 'deluded' just because they didn't make the same choice as you did. And it's OK if they like their camera more than they like yours, even if they're "wrong". 8^)
--
Gary
Photo albums: http://www.pbase.com/roberthouse

MrXpress · Sep 18, 2006

Okay, we get it that you like FZ's more than DSLRs. Good lord, the guy was just asking for information, and it was given. I'm glad you're all happy being rebellious or whatever against the Canon L brigade or whatever, but it has no bearing on the OP's decisions on which camera to buy. I'd imagine he's looking for objective information, but all that seems to come out of this forum is subjective.

DStan · Sep 18, 2006

Gary R. said:
DStan said:

As I always say, I have an FZ30 and like it for what it is. I'm
just tired of the whiners that don't know what they're talking
about and make it or the FZ50 out to be an incredible camera. It's
a good camera and in it's league a top dog. To those silly people,
stop making believe and spend more time learning about photography
as that'll do you more good. Go take some pictures and enjoy the
process

Click to expand...

In my SLR days, if you had told me that I'd be able to get a camera
with a 420mm f/3.7 lens that's stabilized (what's that?) and
actually a zoom to boot, with 35mm f/2.8, fully automatic or
manual, with ISO's up to 1600, I'd have said "that's incredible".

ISO above 100 that quickly degenerates, oh please. The lens is pretty good but not fantastic. $500 doesn't buy you over $1,000 of merchandise. For $500 it's a good deal./

Gary R. said:
Why would it bother you if someone thinks it is? Because you have
something that you think is better? Better for what? Everybody?
Everything?

Stop whining and learn to read. I own an FZ30, I said that I like it and also said that it or the FZ50 are not the incredible cameras that some people make it out to be just because they wish it is.

Gary R. said:
Seems odd that you're telling US to go take photos and enjoy
ourselves?!?! And learn about photography how, by standing around
in groups talking about the new L glass lenses that we lust for
instead of being out looking for some creative photos? Once we
"learn" we can hook up all those fancy flash arrangements you cited
in the parts I snipped, boy will that be fun. Maybe we can even
shoot weddings on weekends while our poor FZ owner counterparts are
in Yosemite or at a balloon festival or shooting birds in the salt
marsh. And set up a portrait studio, and take appointments, or get
in as school photog. Won't that be nice.

You're still whining, you should go out and take pictures, it's therapeutic. I don't hang around talking gear when I'm out taking pictures, I take pictures. But if that's what you like to do, that's OK too. I didn't tell you to go out and buy any flashes either, but if you decide to do weddings, it would be a good investment - hehehe. I didn't recommend a carreer for you either. I think you need to calm down. You're proving to be one of those OCD I luv my camera too much types and so now it becomes the best camera on earth. Give it a rest.

Gary R. said:
Being around Yosemite quite often, I've noticed something that I
don't care for. You go there in off-season, and everybody is
friendly, says 'hi' and smiles, chats, relaxes. Everybody, that
is, except photographers. They walk right by, lost in their own
thoughts, whatever they may be, serious, frowning, muttering.
Usually carrying a tripod and big camera. Then they get together
with others of like mind, in some spot to take...get this...a photo
that's already been taken. Stand around in groups waiting for the
late February sunset to try to get a pic like Galen Rowell's of
horsetail falls, or on Stoneman bridge, waiting for the golden glow
to hit Half Dome. They don't go there and wander around looking
for original photos while they're waiting, they stand in bunches
and talk about Canon's new L glass lens and the new body, and the
new $400 polarizer they got, and tell each other how to use their
equipment properly, and practice drooling over image quality.

Don't complain to me about them, go to Yosemite, get on a soapbox and lecture your "L Glass buddies." While you're at it let them know that $400 for a polarizer is a bit too much and that they got ripped off.

Gary R. said:
Now not every photographer in Yosemite is like the above, but a
disturbing number are.

Nice to see that you're not stereotyping all of them. Maybe talking about their gear is good socialization for them and many of them don't even know how to take a picture. Who cares, if they're happy, fine.

Gary R. said:
These are in general the same folks who are in here insisting that
DSLR's are what everyone should be heading to, the only way you can
be a real photographer, but so many of them are barely
photographers themselves, they have no imagination, they're too
busy worrying about their gear to develop imagination. They copy
the past great photos, or try to, they go to auto races and stand
on a corner and snap the same angle of every car, they go to sports
events and snap multi-cards full to submit to an editing crew with
a production line.

Back to stereotyping, man do you have any issues to work out?

Gary R. said:
But they have great equipment. And they want you to know it. And
someday, if you listen, you can have stuff like they do, and then
you'll be able to take good pictures.

Give it a rest. Your anger is consuming you.
--
Stan ;o()

In the spirit of Occam’s Razor one should embrace the less complicated formulation or simply put, less is more.

skibum02116 · Sep 18, 2006

Your most balanced reply to date, and one I can't disagree with. Not always the case.
--
jkwex

Gary R. · Sep 18, 2006

DStan said:
ISO above 100 that quickly degenerates, oh please. The lens is
pretty good but not fantastic. $500 doesn't buy you over $1,000 of
merchandise. For $500 it's a good deal./
Stop whining and learn to read. I own an FZ30, I said that I like
it

Obviously total BS. You've done nothing but post how your slr is so much better than any FZ, and demand that others acknowledge that, even if they don't care and it's a Panasonic forum. Then you supposedly qualify it all by saying "...but I like it". Hogwash, your own words say the contrary. You want perfection, great, go find it, but you can't control others thoughts or opinions no matter how loud you scream. If someone wants to post on here that the fZ50 is a 'wonderful, incredible, fantastic camera from heaven', you have no control over it, so go find something worthwhile to worry about...maybe take your own advice and go take some photos...better use your dslr though, no matter where you go, wouldn't want that degraded FZ quality.

--
Gary

sbasumal · Sep 18, 2006

Let me add my own 2c to this thread. Of course, this will still be my own opinion, and hence subjective by def'n.

I am a long time (i.e. since its inception

) user of the FZ 20, but recently I did feel the need to go out and get myself an Oly E-500. Most of my photography is available light, in theaters, concerts and dance recitals, and I began to feel the limitations of the Panny when shooting under these conditions. The higher ISO capabilities of the DSLR mean that I could take good, bright pictures at speeds that will cause serious underexposure (and noise) in the FZ. The fact became painfully obvious to me when I compared the images that I had taken to the ones taken by a D70 under the same conditions.

Having said that, let me put you to a test - in the attached link, some of the photos were taken with the Oly e-500, and some with the FZ 20. I have intentionally hidden the exif info to obfuscate the camera details. Can you guess which of these were taken with the FZ20 and which with the DSLR ?

http://sbasumal.smugmug.com/gallery/1719966/1/84878712

DStan · Sep 18, 2006

Gary R. said:
DStan said:

ISO above 100 that quickly degenerates, oh please. The lens is
pretty good but not fantastic. $500 doesn't buy you over $1,000 of
merchandise. For $500 it's a good deal./
Stop whining and learn to read. I own an FZ30, I said that I like
it

Click to expand...

Obviously total BS. You've done nothing but post how your slr is
so much better than any FZ, and demand that others acknowledge
that, even if they don't care and it's a Panasonic forum. Then you
supposedly qualify it all by saying "...but I like it". Hogwash,
your own words say the contrary. You want perfection, great, go
find it, but you can't control others thoughts or opinions no
matter how loud you scream. If someone wants to post on here that
the fZ50 is a 'wonderful, incredible, fantastic camera from
heaven', you have no control over it, so go find something
worthwhile to worry about...maybe take your own advice and go take
some photos...better use your dslr though, no matter where you go,
wouldn't want that degraded FZ quality.

My my haven't you sat on a tack today

I'm not forcing anyone to think any which way, you're not the only person with an opinion or the right to express it. I've said often enough that I use the camera in its context, if you can't figure that out and enjoy ranting and raving, so be it "mine fuhrer" tell me how I should think, not. If you don't like what I've got to say, too bad. I haven't demanded anyone to think differently, what to post or to sell their cameras or whatever your imagining. If something is getting under your skin, stop whining and work it out yourself.
--
Stan ;o()

In the spirit of Occam’s Razor one should embrace the less complicated formulation or simply put, less is more.

bobbyz · Sep 18, 2006

These are just cameras.

--
Bobby

http://bobbyz.smugmug.com

tonymp · Sep 18, 2006

Gary R. said:
tonymp said:

I think at times both sides need to take a reality check! Those who
are prosumer followers must realise that their cams are simply not
as good as DSLR's but by the same token, those who own or wish to
own a DSLR must equally realise that for many, a prosumer offers a
greater choice of features than a DSLR.

Click to expand...

Ok Gary - you win!

From your continued and adverasarial posts on the forum - you don't want a reasoned debate...you merely want an argument in which you win!
Like the guy said - they are only cameras!

Even when the owner of both a DSLR and an FZ camera maintains that the DSLR gives better results - you still want to argue that he's wrong just as you've done with me regarding the A2!

If you haven't owned an A2 then how the he** would you know which is best? The A2 for instance, leaves the FZ30 macros or at least what we call macros in this instance for dead!!! I've tested both of them side by side and there is just no comparison - that's the truth whether you like it or not! You may delude yourself that I am wrong but facts are that I own both cameras and have both results in front of me!

With your arguments you are merely trying to justify your own pre-disposed views rather than listening to others who might just surprisingly have more knowledge than you!

You of course have every right to believe that the FZxx is better than a DSLR but why don't you go onto the 'Pro-Digital' forum and see their reaction to your claims!

The FZ series are a very good group of cameras and they offer quite compelling features for amateurs/enthusiasts alike but once one has moved beyond that realm, then cameras such as the FZxx are just not in the same league!

In your post to me you mentioned probably getting a reasonable 7 x 5 print from an 1600 ISO image from an FZ! I'm sorry to break it to you but I need anything up to 20 x 30 (inch) high quality prints from 800-1600 ISO! So will your 1600 ISO prosumer give me those too? Of course they won't! They are probably ok for small prints at higher ISO's but no good whatsoever for commercial size prints unless they were maybe shot at the camera's lowest ISO's and even then I doubt whether the results would be acceptable!

Anyone who disseminates a post on these forums, sentence by sentence or phrase by phrase is invariably looking to futher their own self importance and dismissive of anyone's views which don't corroborate their views! I never use this approach as everyone is entitled to their own opinion and would never hijack a post to force my own opinion on anyone else!

The original poster merely wanted opinions on which would be the best camera for them - I have given mine just as you have given yours - leave it at that!

--

http://mysite.orange.co.uk/tsphoto/monochrometests.htm

skibum02116 · Sep 18, 2006

At this point your last sentence says all that needs to be said and should be the end of this thread.
--
jkwex

DStan · Sep 18, 2006

bobbyz said:
These are just cameras.

I'm cool and am aware that they're just cameras, only Gary blows his cork if you say anything negative about his beloved brand,
--
Stan ;o()

In the spirit of Occam’s Razor one should embrace the less complicated formulation or simply put, less is more.

gkreth · Sep 18, 2006

DStan said:
I'm cool and am aware that they're just cameras, only Gary blows
his cork if you say anything negative about his beloved brand,

Actually, Stan, that' not true. Re-read his post, and re-read your reply. I'm trying onow to remembe what my "mental image" is of your posting style, opinions, fairness, etc. I thought it was in th e"OK, if somewhat DSRL-biased" category. Maybe it is, I can't remember now offhand (if time permits, I may re-read some of your older posts).

But I think you were pretty unfailr to Gary. You wnet into a "take a chill pill" mode, and I don't thik Gary said anything to deserve that. If you wanna disagree, reply to his original message in a more point-by-point fashion, to demonstrate what you meant. You gave a summary post the REALLY went off in heavy bad-interpretation mode, misquioting him or ascribing thisng to Gary that were not at all in his post, implied or explicitly expressed.

For the record, I'm supporting Gary on this one. I think maybe it's time some of the forum members should speak up for each other if they agree. We get these one-on-one things that other readers (especially newer ones) may view it as two posters just going at each other, and so ignore points made by either. I think that's wrong.

Gary's been very helpful to others. He's also very informed. I have greatr respect for his width and breadth of knowledge about photography; his tips in the serioes of posts about taking sports pics at slower shutter speeds were particulalry helpful, and hit on things I had never thought of. I'm not saying he invented them; but he brought them up, and they were new to me, and I'd bet they were to others as well, and so we all benefitted from them.

--Greg

DStan · Sep 18, 2006

That's your opinion and you're welcome to it. I think he got all bent out of shape and I stand by that. I've seen some of his other posts where he disagrees with people and gets all upset as well. I know he must love Barry Fitzgerald - lol. If you read carefully, you'll see how he easily gets vehement when you disagree with him about this issue. Yes, I think he needs to chill out. If you disagree, that's fine with me, it's your right to feel as you do. Getting in someone's face may not be so right.
--
Stan ;o()

In the spirit of Occam’s Razor one should embrace the less complicated formulation or simply put, less is more.

gkreth · Sep 18, 2006

DStan said:
Gary R. said:

In my SLR days, if you had told me that I'd be able to get a camera
with a 420mm f/3.7 lens that's stabilized (what's that?) and
actually a zoom to boot, with 35mm f/2.8, fully automatic or
manual, with ISO's up to 1600, I'd have said "that's incredible".

Click to expand...

ISO above 100 that quickly degenerates, oh please. The lens is
pretty good but not fantastic. $500 doesn't buy you over $1,000 of
merchandise. For $500 it's a good deal.

Gawd, this is word-parsing at it's worst. I'm a buit tired of people putting words ito others mouths. I don't recall Gary EVER using fan-boy language to describe the FZ30 or FZ50; someone please point to the post, if I'm wrong.

Also, Gary never said it was a $1,000 lens. It's a d@mn fine lens, that's my opinion.

DStan said:
DStan said:

Why would it bother you if someone thinks it is? Because you have
something that you think is better? Better for what? Everybody?
Everything?

Click to expand...

Stop whining and learn to read. I own an FZ30, I said that I like
it and also said that it or the FZ50 are not the incredible cameras
that some people make it out to be just because they wish it is.

Now this is just insulting. For one, he's not "whining" - I know whining, and this is NOT it! Also, "learn to read" - why don't you just add "you dumb-f*ck" to the end, to top it off. You're way off the respect meter, here, Stan.

DStan said:
DStan said:

Won't that be nice.

Click to expand...

You're still whining, you should go out and take pictures, it's
therapeutic.

Actually, he was being sarcastic, not whining. And you're "presciption" is insulting. BTW, Gary takes LOTS of pics, and they are quite good. Stan, I don't recall seing you post much; you don't have a web page in your sig or profile. Can we look at some of your work?

DStan said:
I don't hang around talking gear when I'm out taking
pictures, I take pictures. But if that's what you like to do,
that's OK too.

OK, A) Gary never said you did any of that stuff, he just pointed out a "photog phenomenon" that he's observed. If you think it's unfounded, just say that; and B) you're insulting him again - "but if that's what you like to do..." Welcome to Groucho's "Beat Your Wife" routine, without the humor...

DStan said:
I think you need to calm down. You're proving to be one of those OCD
I luv my camera too much types and so now it becomes the best
camera on earth. Give it a rest.

I need to hunt around a bit anmd see if you've ever told Clint to "give it a rest"; if not, then you have zero right to say it to Gary, and you will haev proved you're pro-DSLR, anti-FZ bias despite owning one.

DStan said:
Don't complain to me about them, go to Yosemite, get on a soapbox
and lecture your "L Glass buddies."

He's point out a gear-oriented, not photo-oriented phenonmenon. You reply is just insulting, unhcalled for, and helps advance the dicussion none.

DStan said:
DStan said:

Now not every photographer in Yosemite is like the above, but a
disturbing number are.

Click to expand...

Nice to see that you're not stereotyping all of them. Maybe talking
about their gear is good socialization for them and many of them
don't even know how to take a picture. Who cares, if they're happy,
fine.

His point, because I think you missed it: Those are the same types constantly bashing the FZ because it's not up to the mega-dollar standards of the high-end glass and DSLRs, when maybe the focus shout be on creastive picture taking. Maybe you did get the point, in which case I guess you're just having too much fun being insulting...

DStan said:
DStan said:

These are in general the same folks who are in here insisting that
DSLR's are what everyone should be heading to, the only way you can
be a real photographer, but so many of them are barely
photographers themselves, they have no imagination, they're too
busy worrying about their gear to develop imagination.

Click to expand...

Oh, shoot, Gary did actually make the point, clearly, in fact. So how did you miss it, Stan?

DStan said:
DStan said:

They copy
the past great photos, or try to, they go to auto races and stand
on a corner and snap the same angle of every car, they go to sports
events and snap multi-cards full to submit to an editing crew with
a production line.

Click to expand...

Back to stereotyping, man do you have any issues to work out?

Oh, yeah, that's how you missed it; the whole point of your reply is apparently to be insulting.

DStan said:
Give it a rest. Your anger is consuming you.

Again, I'm waiting for you to tell others to "give it a rest," ones that REALLY need it. And trying to pass gary off as some anger-consumed OCD person is just "cheap politics" to try and degrade his points, all of which were very valid.

gkreth · Sep 18, 2006

DStan said:
That's your opinion and you're welcome to it. I think he got all
bent out of shape and I stand by that. I've seen some of his other
posts where he disagrees with people and gets all upset as well. I
know he must love Barry Fitzgerald - lol.

Barry brings it on himself. Barry rants MUCH more than Gary. Have you ever told Barry to "give it a rest"?

DStan said:
If you read carefully, you'll see how he easily gets vehement when you
disagree with him about this issue.

I have read carefully, more so than you, I fear, because I don't see what you see. If you can point it out to me, I'd really like to know. Now, I'm not talkign about the one-one-one arguments that have denigrated several levels; Gary, Barry, you, me, we've all done that.

You make Gary out as a Level 1 "my way or else" sort of poster, and that's not true; I don't think you or anyone else can point to any evidence contradicting that. I've read Gary's posts in this forum as well as on other photo newgroups, and I think I "know him" as a result,and what you say is not consistent with my view. And vefore you say we just disagree, I have to reminfd you that my "optinion" is based on reading his posts; so if you want to disagree, you need to show where he has posted things to the contrary. And, before you do, you may want to double-check your own posts to make shure you're not throwing rocks in glass houses....

DStan said:
Getting in someone's face may not be so right.

See, I don't see where Gary got into anybody's face, unless you were one of those Yosemite photogs to which he was referring?

rennie12 · Sep 18, 2006

consider the K10D which is only about $300 more than the k100D.

Just the great OVF and compatibility with upcoming USM lenses made the difference for me.

The reason I am prejudiced is - I have the FZ30. I ordered the FZ50 and returned it due to excessive noise reduction incamera over ISO 200.

I have the K10D on order and have bought the 77mm F1.8 Limited for a stabilized high speed portrait lens, and the Pentax 50-200 as a walk-around lens. My Canon 350XT and lenses are en route to KEH. I am keeping my FZ30, which I like a lot.

In general I would advise always getting the best camera you can afford. Of course "best" is defined by you - so good wishes with whatever route you take.
--
God bless all here - rennie12

David_London · Sep 18, 2006

gkreth said:
DStan said:

I'm cool and am aware that they're just cameras, only Gary blows
his cork if you say anything negative about his beloved brand,

Click to expand...

Hmmm....as a disinterested observer it looked to me like Gary was saying that the FZ's may be the perfect choce for some people - better than a DSLR - depending on their needs . You poo-poo'd his opinion, and then laughingly refused to address any of his points. It came across as pretty damn smug and condescending. Pretending to be surprised by his annoyance is a little like Goldilocks not understanding why there are three angry bears in the room.

Just my opinion, of course, and you're free to ignore it

All the best,
David S.

gkreth · Sep 18, 2006

DStan said:
Tell 'em Tony. Other than all in one, small and light, realtime
histogram and a realtime LCD view, I can't think of any other
features that are outstanding.

According to Simon's review, the FZ50 at ISO 100 is also outstanding.

DStan said:
The best thing about the FZ30/50 is that the Zoom and MF rings
behave like those on a real camera,

This is what I mean; above you said you couldn't "think of any other features that are outstanding," but now you add, "The best thing about the FZ30/50 is that the Zoom and MF rings behave like those on a real camera" - wouldn't hat then be another outstanding thing? Really, I'm just trying to understand...

DStan said:
Nice camera - yes, Fantastic camera - no. Do I like it, yes. Do I use it

yes. Do I understand its limitations - yes.

OK, thanks. This is more along the agree-to-disagree exchanges I think I can live with; the vitriol is giving me an ulcer! ( grin )

Seriously, I hope I haven't p~ssed you off by defending Gary; it was not my intent or my desire attack you, but I thought someone one should stand up for Gary, who I thought was being mis-quoted and then attacked on the basis of those mis-quotes. Not that Gary can't hold his own, but I think maybe it's time some people on the forum jump in for each other; I know I have appreciated it recently when others have stepped in on my behalf....

gkreth · Sep 18, 2006

David_London said:
David_London said:

DStan said:

I'm cool and am aware that they're just cameras, only Gary blows
his cork if you say anything negative about his beloved brand,

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Hmmm....as a disinterested observer it looked to me like Gary was
saying that the FZ's may be the perfect choce for some people -
better than a DSLR - depending on their needs . You poo-poo'd his
opinion, and then laughingly refused to address any of his points.
It came across as pretty damn smug and condescending. Pretending
to be surprised by his annoyance is a little like Goldilocks not
understanding why there are three angry bears in the room.
Just my opinion, of course, and you're free to ignore it

Thanks, David, for stepping in. I too thought Gary was being honest, open, and complete in his assessment, and was jumped on undeservedly. That's why I spoke up in his defense, and I thank you for doing so as well.

FZ50 vs DSLR

Senior Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Keyboard shortcuts